PCgamer review... Anyone else worried? PLEASE READ PAST THE FIRST LINE BEFORE YOU RESPOND

[Wobb the Great and Terrible!!!!!]

PCgamer had a lot of good things to say about last light, but I am worried that it only scored 80%.
I am MORE worried that they said they never had trouble on normal difficulty with filters and ammo (both military and standard), and they found the game very easy.
The review even hints at it being so easy because of consoles.
This was a worry I had as soon as I heard they were making a sequel, and the first gameplay video's they released didn't do much to make me feel better about that.
The last gameplay we saw made me feel much better, but this review has me thinking that maybe it has been dumbed down too much.
And without ranger mode unless you pre-order or cough up more cash, I can see the true metro fans (like me, a proud ranger of the metro for the last couple of years) being a bit upset.
So, have they made it a bit too "modern shooter-y"?
I think they probably have.
The review also says, in essence, that it is a game that sometimes forgets that you want to play it, meaning it wrenches control from you quite often at the end of a gunfight or stealth section, or even just when you are walking around, to show you cutscenes.
The first game rarely took control away from you, except at the start of a mission where it set the scene and put you in place ready to go.
I am worried about this.
This is the ONLY game this year I have truly been looking forward to, and really excited to play. Nothing else has had quite the same effect on me as metro 2033, and I was hoping for more of the same, with a few new weapons and mutants and a new story.
I was even looking for it to be harder, NOT easier.
Looks like they are going for a wider audience rather than staying true to their original fans.
Can't blame them in one way, but on the other hand they wouldn't have such a loved series on their hands if it weren't for the true metro-heads

[BlearyNeptune5]

Publicado originalmente por w0bbl3r:

But the first game did poorly on console because it was "too hard" for many console gamers.
And regardless of the "why", it is said to be easier, and that's a bad thing for metro

That is stupid why would it be harder for people on console and not pc?

[noobdeagle]

there is a difference between 'dumbing down' a game and streamlining controls and gameplay elements.

for example the controls were really bad in metro 2033 so for consoles they made it more intuative this is also good for us who play pc games via a TV.

likewise changes were made in the game play such as the watch is now always visible while holding guns AND its digital so you can get the information easier in a more accurate form.

for me what made metro 2033 actually difficult (even on normal) were the nemerous bugs that i encounter with enemies cliping through me as they were attacking making it very hard to actually shoot them. provided lots of bugs were fixed and weapon / controls were tightened i can see this game being very easy hence why ranger mode is consider 'how its meant to be played'

does this make it bad ? no, it will just encourace a double play through from me 1 normal for story and so i can finish it before i goto work then a longer run on ranger where ill explore more and fear for my life.

[DankHillCometh]

Ranger mode is there for a reason.

[vrill]

Well, the regular difficulties in Metro 2033 were overly difficult. I would call it bad game design. Everything was a damn bullet sponge, and I never had problems with ammo/filters/MGRs on Normal, either. So this really isn't a surprise that they maybe tried to make the regular difficulties a little more playable. It's still pretty stupid if they made Normal god-awful easy. I'm confident that the Ranger difficulties will bring the true experience to the game, and it's also unfortunate they're limited to the limited edition or available by paying $5. Either way all this really says is "don't play on normal if you want a true metro experience."

[Thick Spinach]

Keep in mind this is a review Deep Silver let them put out The game could be much worst. Remember Aliens: Colonial Marines?

[Wobb the Great and Terrible!!!!!]

But then that means that for, as the ad says "the it was meant to be played", you have to pre-order.
What about people who won't have enough money until after it is released, and the last key for the "Limited edition" (I call ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ there) was sold ten minutes before they tried to buy the game?
So, the REAL metro isn't for sale unless you buy DLC? What next?
The angry joe rant about this was exactly right, this is going in a terrible direction.
And to you people saying the difficulty was too hard in the previous game; no, it wasn't. It was harder than a regular shooter, but it was perfect.
I only once had problems with a checkpoint save screwing me with a no win save-point, and that was in ranger hardcore. I had no filters when I came out of polis and tried to run all the way to the library gasping for breath. Since they didn't sell filters in polis, I had to go right back to the previous metro station level, which took out a LOT of what I had just done.
The easy difficulty was very simple, the normal difficulty was perfect, a great challenge, and hard was very hard indeed.
Normal was just perfect before.
They say they want people to play ranger mode on a second playthrough, and the first playthrough is supposed to be played with regular difficulty.
But, if ranger, or even regular hard difficulty, is going to screw us with stupid boss fights, then the game is not designed well at all

[Wobb the Great and Terrible!!!!!]

Publicado originalmente por Graeme- Mr.G:

Keep in mind this is a review Deep Silver let them put out The game could be much worst. Remember Aliens: Colonial Marines?

Very true

[Sandman]

I am worried that you would base your decision on someone elses opinion.

[Wobb the Great and Terrible!!!!!]

Trust me, if he finds it too easy, then a true metro fan such as myself will find it even MORE stupidly easy.;
It's not a shooter, it's supposed to be metro, which means struggling for resources, having a hard time finding filters, having to take cover in firefights.
And yes, all that should apply on normal difficulty.
What about people for whom the ranger mode is too hard? If this review is right, they might as well have taken out looting and gas masks altogether, because you never have to worry about them

[Wobb the Great and Terrible!!!!!]

Publicado originalmente por Bacterialcone:

Publicado originalmente por w0bbl3r:

But the first game did poorly on console because it was "too hard" for many console gamers.
And regardless of the "why", it is said to be easier, and that's a bad thing for metro

That is stupid why would it be harder for people on console and not pc?

Because of a few reasons. First, it's harder to control a first person shooter with a controller. Second, console gamers are, in general (not all of them, but most of them), much more casual gamers. They don't want to be taxed, they don't want to think too much, they just want call of duty style explosions and killing.
The game did poorly on consoles, and scored low in most console reviews because of the things it was loved for on PC, such as struggling for resources, firefights being a real challenge, not having a huge waypoint arrow on your HUD telling you where to go and what to do, having to worry about breathing on the surface. It was loved on PC for those things, not so much on console.
So they dumb it down to make it more marketable, so they can get better sales of this, and then churn out more and more, dumber each time. Just like call of duty, medal of honor, and battlefield

[Dog]

Publicado originalmente por w0bbl3r:

which means struggling for resources, having a hard time finding filters

I found the first game not too hard at all, only jumpy and somewhat buggy, although I scavenged a LOT.

I was more taken in with the story and the environment than the difficulty, although what Sandcracka said is true, you can't really rely too much on other peoples opinions and especially not one from PCGamer.

[Wobb the Great and Terrible!!!!!]

Publicado originalmente por el Dog.?:

Publicado originalmente por w0bbl3r:

which means struggling for resources, having a hard time finding filters

I found the first game not too hard at all, only jumpy and somewhat buggy, although I scavenged a LOT.

I was more taken in with the story and the environment than the difficulty, although what Sandcracka said is true, you can't really rely too much on other peoples opinions and especially not one from PCGamer.

But you had to scavenge, right?
According to this review, you just find way more than enough stuff just lying around, without having to scour the map.
It even says that in some places the game seems to struggle if you wander around too much, with funny invisible walls, and places where you can just die if you try to go loot hunting.

[Dog]

Oh yeah, especially during the scene with the Librarians because I decided killing them was better... .___.

Then again they sometimes attack you even without you turning around.

I was never short of military grade bullets really, what I can never fathom is how many you find between the last shop and the games end, I had like 600 remaining.

[BlearyNeptune5]

Publicado originalmente por w0bbl3r:

Publicado originalmente por Bacterialcone:

That is stupid why would it be harder for people on console and not pc?

Because of a few reasons. First, it's harder to control a first person shooter with a controller. Second, console gamers are, in general (not all of them, but most of them), much more casual gamers. They don't want to be taxed, they don't want to think too much, they just want call of duty style explosions and killing.
The game did poorly on consoles, and scored low in most console reviews because of the things it was loved for on PC, such as struggling for resources, firefights being a real challenge, not having a huge waypoint arrow on your HUD telling you where to go and what to do, having to worry about breathing on the surface. It was loved on PC for those things, not so much on console.
So they dumb it down to make it more marketable, so they can get better sales of this, and then churn out more and more, dumber each time. Just like call of duty, medal of honor, and battlefield

I use my controller all the time speak for yourself, and not everyone can afford a gaming pc and if they could maybe they couldn't fix the problems they may have. your just sounding like a total douche.

[Wobb the Great and Terrible!!!!!]

Publicado originalmente por Darkullax:

Lets rush out and buy the magazine no wait ♥♥♥♥ reviews.

So, you would rather go in blindly accepting anything they release, without taking in any outside information?
Publishers love people like you darkullax, they absolutely LOVE you.
I bet you just love any game you see a trailer for that looks good, regardless of whether it is actually any good as well, don't you?
Or are you one of those people who say that reviews in PCGamer are all paid off by the publisher to not criticise? If so, why are they criticising it?
Like I said, they have said plenty of great things about the game. the reviewer even said he WANTED it easier in some ways.
But any kind of dumbing down to this degree worries me. It could turn out to be not as bad as it sounds. But it COULD turn out to be worse.
All I am saying is that I am a bit worried by this news, that's all